Chemical management for consumer products - Industry landscape and recommendations for progress - University of ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Chemical management for consumer products Industry landscape and recommendations for progress
CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS B
ABOUT THE AUTHORS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) is an The team that undertook this research was a partnership
interdisciplinary research and consulting organisation at the between ISF and Ascend Waste and Environment Pty Ltd.
University of Technology Sydney setting global benchmarks
since 1997 in helping governments, organisations, The team thanks all the companies who agreed to
businesses and communities achieve change towards participate in the research and who took part in an
sustainable futures. We utilise a unique combination of interview and/or provided data. We also thank the NGOs
skills and perspectives to offer long-term sustainable and academics who helped provide perspectives as input
solutions that protect and enhance the environment, to the research.
human well being and social equity.
DISCLAIMER
For further information visit: www.isf.uts.edu.au
This research was commissioned by a sustainable
investment company, which has been anonymised for the
RESEARCH TEAM public version of this report. The content of this report has
Prof. Damien Giurco, Jerastin Dubash, been prepared independently by the research team. The
Rachael Wakefield‑Rann, Emily Prentice. research team has used all due care and skill to ensure
Special Advisor: Geoff Latimer, Ascend Waste the material is accurate as at the date of publication and
and Environment Pty Ltd any opinions expressed therein are those of the authors.
However, the use of the Research is at the user’s own risk
and ISF, the client and Ascend Waste and Environment
CITATION
Pty Ltd disclaim any responsibility to anyone relying upon
Please cite as: Dubash, J., Wakefield-Rann, R., Prentice, the Research.
E., Giurco, D., and Latimer, G. (2018): Chemical
Management for Consumer Products – Industry
landscape and recommendations for progress. Institute for INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE FUTURES
Sustainable Futures, UTS. University of Technology Sydney
PO Box 123 Broadway, NSW, 2007
isf@uts.edu.au
www.isf.edu.au
© UTS November 2020
Tel: +61 2 9514 4950CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 1
Contents
INTRODUCTION 1 4. RESULTS SUMMARY 26
4.1 Overall score results, by company 26
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
Figure 3: Overall score results, by company 26
Figure 1: Overall results summary 4
4.2 Overall score results, by assessment criteria 27
What does best practice look like? 7
Figure 4: Overall score results, by
ABBREVIATIONS 8 assessment criteria 27
4.3 Ingredient disclosure and ‘Chemicals of
Concern’ grades by company 28
THE REPORT 9
Table 9: Ingredient disclosure and chemicals
1. INTRODUCTION 10 of concern 28
1.1 Research commissioned 10 4.4 Personal Care sector 29
Table 1: Product categories and specific Table 10: Personal Care results summary 29
products analysed 10
4.5 Home Care sector 30
1.2 What are chemicals of concern? 11
Table 11: Home Care results summary 30
Table 2: Chemicals of concern 12
4.6 Paints sector 30
Figure 2: Chemical classes of concern 13
Table 12: Paints results summary 30
2. UNDERSTANDING THE REGULATORY 4.7 Pesticides and Insecticides sector 31
AND POLITICAL CONTEXT 14 4.8 Adhesives and Sealants 31
Table 3: Regulatory overview 14 Table 13: Adhesives and Sealants
2.1 Issues: developed economies 17 results summary 31
2.2 Issues: developing economies 17 4.9 Ingredients Manufacturing 31
Table 14: Ingredients Manufacturing
3. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 20 results summary 31
Table 4: Product responsibility performance
evaluation criteria 20 5. RECOMMENDATIONS 32
Table 5: Product responsibility evaluation 5.1 Improvement opportunities 32
scoring table 22 5.2 Build enabling networks 34
Table 6: Chemicals of Concern ratings Figure 5: Connections between NGOs 34
and descriptions 23
5.3 Future research areas 35
Table 7: Levels of Ingredient Disclosure
ratings and descriptions 24
Table 8: Regulatory, Reputational and
Financial risk references 25CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 2 Executive Summary
CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 3
Executive Summary
This report seeks to understand best and worst practice in relation to product safety
standards and the use and management of potentially hazardous chemicals in products,
with a special focus on consumer products in established and emerging markets across
the globe. The report explores what constitutes leading practice in product safety
standards and collates the efforts of selected companies to remove or avoid potentially
hazardous chemicals in their products. Whilst individual companies are not uniquely
identified, collectively the work paints a picture of the state-of-play.
The research focused on the following
1| REVIEW OF PUBLICLY
product categories:
AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS
• Personal Care products (including
cosmetics, oral care, hair care,
sunscreens, soaps and skin creams)
• Home Care products (laundry, cleaning
and air fresheners)
• Pesticides and Insecticides (for home
2| NLINE BASELINE SURVEY
O
COMPLETED BY COMPANIES IN
RELATION TO CURRENT PRACTICES
use only)
• Paints (for home use)
• Adhesives and Sealants (for home use)
3|
• Ingredients manufactured for these
HONE INTERVIEW OR WRITTEN
P
sectors.
RESPONSE WITH COMPANIES IN
The data collection process is illustrated RELATION TO CURRENT PRACTICES
to the right.
4| XPERT INTERVIEWS (NGOS,
E
ACADEMICS) TO ASCERTAIN GLOBAL
CONTEXT, BEST PRACTICE
5| EVALUATION OF COMPANY PRODUCT
RESPONSIBILITY EFFORTSCHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 4
Executive Summary continued
The research began by gathering publicly available information about the 21 companies reviewed in this report, and
proceeded with gathering publicly available information about these companies. ISF also contacted the companies to complete
a ‘baseline survey’ in relation to their current practices on the use and management of hazardous chemicals in their products,
and a phone interview or written response to more detailed questions. This information was supplemented with interviews with
six NGOs and academics active in the field of product responsibility and/or the consumer products sector.
In order to keep the included companies anonymous, we have identified each with the initial ‘C’, and assigned them a number
from 1 to 21.
RESULTS SUMMARY
Figure 1: Overall results summary
C9 (Ingredients)
C16 (Adhesives and Sealants)
C2 (Paints, Adhesives and Sealants)
C10 (Paints, Adhesives and Sealants)
C4 (Personal Care, Home Care)
C3 (Personal Care)
C5 (Personal Care, Home Care,
Pesticides and Insecticides)
C18 (Ingredients)
C1 (Personal Care)
C11 (Paints)
C15 (Paints)
C12 (Personal Care)
C20 (Personal Care, Ingredients)
C8 (Personal Care, Home Care)
C19 (Paints)
C14 (Personal Care)
C6 (Personal Care, Home Care,
Pesticides and Insecticides)
C17 (Personal Care, Home Care)
C7 (Personal Care, Home Care,
Adhesives and Sealants, Ingredients)
C13 (Personal Care, Home Care)
C21 (Personal Care, Home Care)
1 2 3 4 5
No Action Getting Started Established Leading Best Practice
Figure 1 ranks the companies in order from least to highest average score calculated across the criteria categories, with the
circles representing the average and ‘lozenges’ representing the range of scores achieved across all criteria. All company
performance evaluations were at or below ‘Established’ level. Nine companies were evaluated as ‘Getting Started’ level with
another eight companies evaluated as ‘No Action’. This indicates that there is much progress to be made in moving towards
safe, sustainable and responsible management of chemicals in consumer products across these companies.CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 5
RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS
Hazardous ingredient responsibility and its relationship to company sustainability
were not well considered by the majority of companies
In interview and written company responses, there was little acknowledgement of the significance of proactive and
precautionary chemical management policies for long-term human and environmental health. Rather, company responses
tended to frame ‘sustainability’ in terms of water and energy usage and waste generation. As one NGO interviewed stated
“companies do not consider product ingredients and altering them at the core of achieving true sustainability […] if product
ingredients are changed, only then can overall company sustainability be improved”.
i I MPLICATIONS: Greater corporate focus is required to integrate responsible ingredient sourcing and hazardous
chemicals management with the precautionary principle and overall sustainability goals to achieve genuine long-term
sustainability, in terms of environmental, human health and business outcomes.
Disclosure of product ingredients is generally poor
Seven of the 21 companies received a ‘Good’ rating for ingredient disclosure. Evaluating companies on their product
responsibility efforts was challenging given the lack of substantial and explicit information in public documents, and
companies’ efforts to protect ‘trade secrets’. It was often a challenge for investor relations teams to identify appropriate staff
within the company to respond to our queries.
i I MPLICATIONS: Consumers are increasingly demanding transparency and the power to decide what ingredients
they consume. Given inadequate chemical testing and the continued inclusion of concerning chemicals in consumer
products, there is an urgent need for product ingredient disclosure across product sectors to be improved.
Some sectors fared worse than others
The best overall scores in company evaluations for responsible chemical management in consumer products were for the
Personal Care and Home Care sectors. The Paints sector came in second, followed by generally poor performance across
the Adhesives and Sealants and Ingredients Manufacturing sectors. The Pesticides and Insecticides sector had only two
representative companies and could not be comprehensively evaluated. Despite the higher toxicity of products in the
Pesticides and Insecticides and the Adhesives and Sealants categories, and the requirement for manufacturers to provide
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), these health and safety documents generally focus on handling issues and immediate
first aid concerns rather than information about ingredient toxicity and bio-accumulative impacts in the long-term.
Particular ingredients of concern featured prominently
Microbeads, triclosan, parabens, generically termed ‘fragrance’ or ‘parfum’, DMDM hydantoin and phthalates were some of
the main ingredients of concern among the Personal Care and Home Care segments. Volatile organic compounds (toluene,
ethylbenzene) and lead were the main concerns in the Paints and Adhesives and Sealants segments.CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 6
Executive Summary continued
i I MPLICATIONS: All of these ingredients are of moderate to high concern on the Environmental Working Group’s ‘Skin
Deep’ Database and ChemSec’s SIN List, and are recommended for elimination. The continued use of these chemicals
is likely to result in increased regulatory and/or reputational risks. Products containing these ingredients should be
reformulated or redesigned to exclude these ingredients of concern, and other chemicals within the six chemical classes
of particular concern to avoid ‘regrettable substitution’ issues (see Section 2.3.3)
No difference between developed and developing countries was evident in terms of
proactive chemical management practices
Indian companies showed leadership in responsible chemicals management by either self-imposing EU REACH product
responsibility/safety norms or were guided by the Bureau of Indian Standards, despite weak domestic regulations and policies.
In particular, Indian paint companies led the pack by removing lead and/or reducing Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in
their paint products. One company based in Brazil, mentioned that though their own domestic regulation was not stringent,
the neighbouring market of Chile had very strict product regulation with respect to particular chemicals, which influenced their
product reformulations to continue supplying this market.
Few companies were able to provide evidence of appropriate risk assessments of products,
including life cycle assessments
While some companies have clear commitments to life cycle assessment of their products, others provided little to no evidence
that any risk assessment is being undertaken on a regular basis, or at least as part of the product development process. Lee
Bell from IPEN also noted, in an interview, the inadequacy of traditional risk assessment methods, as they cannot account
for complex use scenarios in which different chemical combinations result in different forms of harm over time. Given that a
number of companies have faced public scrutiny in relation to consumer products in recent years, it is unclear why life cycle
assessments are not integrated into regular risk assessment accounting for multiple use scenarios, and reporting to ensure
safety, environmental, reputational and financial risk is appropriately managed.
i I MPLICATIONS: The continued use of chemicals that have not undergone rigorous testing for multiple use scenarios
and long term human health and environmental impacts poses a significant risk to companies. Many of the companies
assessed would consequently benefit from implementing a thorough risk assessment process, including potential long
term impacts and a detailed Life Cycle Assessment.CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 7
What does best practice look like?
From the interviews, written responses and public documents reviewed, ISF has developed the following recommendations
for companies that want to lead in the product responsibility/ chemical management space:
1
Adopt a precautionary approach to chemical management across the product development process and supply
chain monitoring for ALL products - not just for the select few products branded as ‘eco’ or ‘green’.
2
Question the necessity of using potentially hazardous chemicals when designing both products and
their packaging.
3
Adopt a precautionary principle when redesigning or reformulating products that currently contain potentially
hazardous chemicals.
4 Fully and explicitly disclose all ingredients on product labels, avoiding generic terms.
5
Engage with stakeholders more widely, including multipartite consultations and international roundtables, with
governments, NGOs, academics, waste and recycling managers, product users and industry product designers.
6
Engage with other companies with proactive chemical management and corporate strategies. For example, IKEA,
Apple, Boots, Skanska and H&M are members of ChemSec’s Business Group.CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 8 Abbreviations AICS Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances BCRC Basel Convention Regional Centre for the Asia and Pacific Region in China BIS Bureau of Indian Standards Cefic The European Chemical Industry Council ChemSec International Chemical Secretariat EDC Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals EMS Environmental Management System EWG Environmental Working Group IFRA International Fragrance Association IPEN International Persistent Organic Pollutants Elimination Network JIS Japan Industrial Standard K-REACH Korean Safety and Labelling Standards for Chemical Consumer Products LCA Life Cycle Assessment MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet NPI National Pollutant Inventory POP Persistent Organic Pollutant REACH Europe’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals policy RSL Restricted Substance List SDS Safety Data Sheet SIN List ChemSec’s Substitute It Now! List TIS Together for Sustainability Initiative VOC Volatile Organic Compound
CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 9 The report
CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 10
1. Introduction
1.1 Research
This report seeks to understand best and worst practice in product chemical safety standards for companies in the consumer
products sector in developed and developing countries. This research report seeks to:
1
Identify which companies amongst those evaluated have gone furthest to proactively remove potentially hazardous
chemicals from their products and which are doing just enough to keep up with regulation;
2
rovide a comprehensive evaluation of which companies are at greatest reputational, financial and regulatory risk
P
from rising consumer awareness around toxic ingredients and tightening state regulatory standards;
3
Identify for each company in the study (21 companies) key actions that senior management should undertake
over the short-term (less than 3 years) and long-term, to further de-risk their businesses.
This research focuses on the following consumer product categories, with some specific analysis conducted on ingredients in
products within the category.
Table 1: Product categories and specific products analysed
Sector Specific products analysed
Personal Care Sunscreens, body lotions, moisturisers, make-up and cosmetics, body wash, hand wash, soaps,
perfumes, deodorants, talcum powders, baby care products, hair dyes, shampoos, conditioners, hair
sprays and other hair styling products, skin and hair bleaches, hair removal products, toothpastes and
tooth powders.
Home Care Laundry powders and detergents, dishwashing detergents, tablets and powders, home cleaning
products, air fresheners and deodorising sprays.
Pesticides Insect repellent sprays and lotions (for body), indoor pest control sprays, coils, electric and non-electric
and kits, outdoor insect control sprays, powders or pellets.
Insecticides
Paints Interior paints, exterior paints, undercoatings and primers for consumer use.
Adhesives and Enamels, epoxies, stains and finishes for wood and metals, waterproofing solutions, tile adhesives and
Sealants grouts, craft and hobby adhesives, adhesive tapes for consumer use.
Ingredients Fragrances used in the manufacture of Personal Care and Home Care products.
These product categories were selected to focus the scope of the research on the analysis of products that have the most
direct impact on human health and indoor environments through contact with skin, hair, eyes, or through ingestion. There
are other consumer product categories such as food and food packaging, furniture and household goods, which also
contain chemicals of concern, however, analysis of these product categories are outside the scope of this project and are
recommended for review in subsequent research projects.CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 11
1.2 What are chemicals of concern?
The number of chemicals registered for use in consumer products around the world exceeds 80,000, and approximately
2,000 new chemicals enter the market each year, the majority of which have never been tested.1 This means that there is
insufficient research on many of the chemicals in consumer products.
Traditionally, chemical regulation around the world has placed the burden of proof of harm on consumers and scientists.
Within this regulatory framework, a chemical is considered safe until it is proven otherwise. Even in instances where research
is funded to conduct testing, conventional toxicological risk assessments – based on testing single chemicals on animals in a
laboratory setting – are only able to capture short-term harm with consistent physiological effects. They are not able to account
for long-term impacts, such as cancer and hormonal disruption, or the impacts of chemicals in complex everyday use-
scenarios where people or ecosystems are exposed to multiple chemicals at the same time.
However, the regulatory landscape is shifting to make producers of chemicals and consumer products more responsible.
ISF has explored this regulatory shift in more detail in Section 2 of this Report.
Until now, there have been few incentives for companies to implement a rigorous, proactive chemical management plan.
However, as regulations become stricter and consumers become more aware of chemical risks posed by consumer
products, it will be necessary for companies to engage with emerging science and adopt a more precautionary approach
to chemical safety.
To outline some of the effects associated with certain chemical ingredients, we have developed a guide below to describe
some of the most commonly encountered chemicals, included in many of the products listed in Table 1. Table 2 provides an
overview of some of the most controversial chemicals that have gained political and consumer attention around the world.
There are many more chemicals of concern not listed here, however, those listed have been identified as posing the greatest
potential reputational risk.
Endocrine disrupting chemicals Chemicals that accumulate Carcinogenic refers to
(EDCs) interfere with the normal in living organisms, so substances that have the
functioning of the hormonal system. that their concentrations potential to cause cancer.
They have been linked to impaired in body tissues continue
development of reproductive, immune to increase, are called
and neurological systems, certain bioaccumulative.3
cancers, obesity and diabetes.2
1 Ha, S., Seidle, T., & Lim, K. M. (2016). Act on the Registration and Evaluation of Chemicals (K-REACH) and replacement, reduction or refinement
best practices. Environmental health and toxicology, 31.
2 US EPA Website. “What are Concerns Regarding Endocrine Disruptors?”, https://www.epa.gov/endocrine-disruption/what-endocrine-disruption
3 Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Website. http://saferchemicals.org/get-the-facts/chemicals-of-concern/persistent-bioaccumulative-and-toxic-
chemicals-pbts/CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 12
1. Introduction continued
Considering the inadequacy of current chemical testing requirements, scientists are increasingly advocating for the restricted
use of entire chemical classes. Table 2 provides a list of six chemical classes that have been recommended for exclusion from
consumer products.4 These six classes contain chemicals known to cause harm to humans and the environment, and closely
related chemicals that have not yet been tested but are suspected to be harmful. Restricting a class of chemicals avoids a
specific chemical of concern being substituted by one which is functionally similar but inadequately tested.
i AS AN INVESTOR, asking questions about which chemical classes are present in products would be a helpful step in
understanding a company’s ingredient disclosure policies and product development process.
Table 2: Chemicals of concern
Volatile Organic Compounds Respiratory irritant, central nervous system effects
(toluene, ethylbenzene, Present in: Paints, Home Care products, Personal Care products, Adhesives and
xylene) Sealants, Pesticides and Insecticides
Triclocarban/ Triclosan Endocrine disruption, environmental toxicant, bioaccumulative
Present in: Personal Care products, Home Care products
Formaldehyde Carcinogenic, organ system toxicant, allergen, environmental toxicant
Present in: Personal Care products, Paints
Fragrance Immune system toxicant, environmental toxicant
Present in: Personal Care products, Home Care products
Lead Brain and central nervous system developmental effects
Present in: Paints
Nanoparticles Unknown effects, extremely reactive/catalytic
Present in: Personal Care products, Paints
Titanium dioxide Brain and central nervous system effects, carcinogenic
Present in: Personal Care products, Paints
Polybrominated Diphenyl Flame retardant has links to tumours, neurodevelopmental toxicity and thyroid hormone
Ethers (PBDE) imbalance, endocrine disruption
Present in: Paints
Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl Possibly carcinogenic, bioaccumulative environmental toxicant, endocrine disruption,
substances (PFASs) neurotoxicity
Present in: Personal Care products, Home Care products, Adhesives and Sealants
Pthalates Endocrine disruption, bioaccumulative environmental toxicant
Present in: Personal Care products, Adhesives and Sealants
4 The Six Classes Approach to Reducing Chemical Harm. Green Science Policy Institute, http://www.sixclasses.org [accessed 22nd December 2017]CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 13
Figure 2: Chemical classes of concern5
HIGHLY
FLUORINATED
(PFASS)
PFOA, PFOS,
Other 3000 related
compounds
CHLORINATED
CERTAIN METALS ANTI-MICROBIALS
Mercury, Cadmium, Triclosan, Triclocarban,
Lead Nanosilver, Quaternary
ammonium salts,
Benzalkonium Chloride
6
CHEMICAL
CLASSES OF
CONCERN
SOME SOLVENTS FLAME
RETARDANTS
VOCs (toluene, xylene,
benzene), Halogenated PBDEs, Chlorinated
organic solvents Tris (TDCPP)
BISPHENOLS
& PTHALATES
Bisphenol A (BPA), Bisphenol
S (BPS), Bisphenol F (BPF),
Dibutyl Pthalate, Butyl Benzyl
Pthalate, Dimethyl Pthalate,
Diethyl Pthalate
5 As adapted from the Green Science Policy Institute ‘SixClasses.Org’ Website, http://www.sixclasses.org/ [accessed 22nd December 2017]CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 14
2. Understanding the regulatory
and political context
A number of challenges have prevented adequate regulation to protect humans and the environment from hazardous
chemicals in both developed and developing countries. A brief list of chemicals management regulations, policies, standards
and agreements is shown in the table below.
Table 3: Regulatory overview
Country/ Regulation/policy/
Region agreement/standard Description
Global United Nations CiP aims to reduce risks from hazardous chemicals in products through
Environment Programme 3 key objectives:
Chemicals in Products
(CiP) Programme • To know and exchange information on chemicals in products,
associated hazards and sound management practices within supply
chains;
• To disclose information of relevance to stakeholders outside the supply
chain to enable informed decision-making and actions about chemicals
in consumer products;
• To ensure that, through due diligence, information is accurate, current
and accessible.
Globally Harmonised 1. P
rovides harmonized criteria for classifying substances and mixtures
System of classifying and according to their health, environmental and physical hazards, and;
labelling chemicals (GHS) 2. Provides harmonised hazard communication elements, including
requirements for labelling and safety data sheets.
Multilateral Stockholm Convention Objective: to prohibit and/or eliminate the production and use, as well as
the import and export, of intentionally produced POPs. (Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs): chemicals that remain intact in the environment for
long periods, become widely distributed geographically, accumulate in the
fatty tissue of humans and wildlife, and have harmful impacts on human
health or on the environment.)
Rotterdam Convention Objective: create legally binding obligations for the international trade
of hazardous chemicals, and the environmentally sound use of those
hazardous chemicals. It primarily covers pesticides and industrial
chemicals.
Basel Convention Objective: promote the reduction of hazardous waste generation, the
sound management of hazardous wastes, the restriction of transboundary
movements of hazardous wastes, and regulatory systems in cases where
transboundary movements are permissible.CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 15
Country/ Regulation/policy/
Region agreement/standard Description
Europe REACH • The European Union’s REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation
and Restriction of Chemicals) program is recognised as the most
comprehensive regional regulatory framework6.
• REACH operates based on four processes: the registration, evaluation,
authorisation and restriction of chemicals.
• It shifts the responsibility from public authorities to industry for
assessing risks and providing appropriate safety information for
chemical use.
• 524 chemicals to date are restricted under REACH are listed in Annex XVII.
A further 204 chemicals are listed as ‘substances of very high concern’.
United States EPA Toxic Substances • Inventory of existing chemical substances in the USA.
of America Control Act (TSCA) • If a chemical is not on the inventory, it is considered a ‘new chemical
Chemical Substance substance’ and must be reviewed under the EPA’s TSCA New Chemicals
Inventory Review Program, which acts as a gatekeeper that can identify conditions,
up to and including a ban on production, to be placed on the use of a
new chemical before it is entered into commerce.
• https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory.
Australia NICNAS Australian • Assesses the risks of industrial chemicals and provides information to
Inventory of Chemical promote their safe use.
Substances (AICS) • Focuses on chemicals used in inks, plastics, adhesives, paints, glues,
solvents, cosmetics, soaps and many other products.
• https://www.nicnas.gov.au/chemical-inventory-AICS.
Hazardous Chemical • HCIS is an internet advisory service providing information on chemicals that
Information System have been classified in accordance with the Globally Harmonized System of
(HCIS) Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) by an authoritative source,
such as the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) or the National Industrial
Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS).
• Not an exhaustive hazardous chemicals database.
• http://hcis.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/#Classification.
The National Pollutant • Contains data on 93 substances that have been identified as important
Inventory (NPI) due to their possible effect on human health and the environment.
• Provides monitoring data for environmental pollutants originating from
mines, power stations and factories, and from other sources such as
households and transport.
• http://www.npi.gov.au
• http://www.npi.gov.au/resource/technical-advisory-panel-report
6 Understanding REACH: European Chemicals Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/understanding-reach [Accessed 26 March 2018]CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 16
2. Understanding the regulatory and
political context continued
Country/ Regulation/policy/
Region agreement/standard Description
Japan Japan Industrial Standard • Chemical classification, labelling and safety data sheet (SDS) regulations
(JIS) are addressed by the Japan Industrial Standard (JIS)
• Implemented a single standard in January 2017, to which all companies
must comply.
• The 1974 law on household products containing harmful substances
(2009 revision) established permissible limits of harmful substances
in household products. The list of harmful substances can be found at
Japan’s Chemical Risk Information Platform (CHRIP).
South Korea K-REACH • K-REACH Safety and Labelling Standards for Chemical Consumer
Products
• From April 2015 – safety and labelling standards for eight types of
products including: cleaning agents, synthetic detergents, bleaching
agents, fabric softeners, coatings, adhesives (including glues),
fragrances, and deodorants.
• From 1 July 2013, businesses must comply with GHS standards with
regards to mixtures classification and labelling.
India National Chemical Policy Been in draft form since 2012, further refined in 2014.
Gained support from industry and some government agencies but still
awaiting approval.7
The European Union’s chemical regulation framework REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of
Chemicals) is shifting the burden of proof to industries, requiring them to demonstrate that the chemicals they produce
do not cause harm.
i he final deadline for companies to register the old and new chemicals they want to use in products for
T
REACH is May 2018.
Other countries, such as China and Korea1, are following in this model, meaning that regulation around the world will
increasingly require more stringent chemical testing to be carried out by companies. Although REACH represents a step
in the right direction, concern has been raised that chemical restrictions and bans will be weakened by member states and
industries that rely on a strong chemical industry.
7 India updates draft national chemical policy: ChemicalWatch Global Risk & Regulation News. https://chemicalwatch.com/18318/india-updates-draft-
national-chemical-policy [Accessed 22 December 2017]CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 17 2.1 Issues: developed economies 2.1.1 INCONSISTENT LEGAL FRAMEWORKS In many developed economies, such as Australia, the United States, Canada, and until recently the European Union, chemicals used in consumer products have been regulated under different domestic laws, creating inconsistent and piecemeal protections. For example, in the United States, the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was implemented to protect humans and the environment from harm from toxic chemicals, however it does not include drugs, cosmetics or pesticides, which are covered by different laws. This has meant that protections are inconsistent and challenging to assess. 2.1.2 LACK OF CHEMICAL SAFETY TESTING In addition to insufficiently tested chemicals that enter the global market each year, many chemicals that were in use prior to legislation being enacted were ‘grandfathered’ and have not undergone any testing. In Australia 40,000 chemicals were ‘grandfathered’ into the Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances8, while 62,000 were included in TSCA in the United States9. In addition, the long-term effects of new chemicals, such as cancer and hormonal disruption, are not taken into account in required safety testing. 2.1.3 TRADE SECRETS Many domestic chemical regulatory frameworks, including Australia and the United States, allow companies to not disclose all of the chemical ingredients in their products to protect ‘trade secrets’. Although these chemicals are still subject to national testing requirements, consumers are not able to access and make informed decisions about chemicals in products. A controversial example is ‘fragrance’, an umbrella term which includes substances found to be allergenic and potentially toxic to organ systems. 2.2 Issues: developing economies Lack of regulation and enforcement: in addition to the issues described above, many developing economies across Asia, Africa and Latin America do not have sufficient basic regulatory frameworks and chemical registration schemes. In addition, where regulation does exist, the state often does not have the capacity to enforce restrictions and bans. 8 National Toxics Network, (2014) Review of the National Industrial Chemicals and Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) http://www.ntn.org.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NTN-SubmissiondraftRIS2014.pdf 9 Ebnesajjad , S. (2016) TOSCA is an Opera, TSCA can be a Drama, in Chemical Manufacturing Excellence, https://chemical-materials.elsevier.com/chemical-manufacturing-excellence/tosca-is-an-opera-tsca-can-be-a-drama/
CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 18
2. Understanding the regulatory and
political context continued
2.3 Key topics of concern and controversy
2.3.1 AGGREGATE EXPOSURES AND ‘COCKTAIL EFFECTS’
Due to the ubiquity of chemicals in consumer products, people are often exposed to many substances, multiple times a day.
This is important because many chemicals have different effects based on the amount, duration and frequency of exposures,
and what other chemicals they are combined with. The transformation of chemical behaviour because of combination with
other chemicals has been termed the ‘cocktail effect’. It is consequently insufficient to assess safety based on a single
chemical in a specific setting removed from the influence of other chemicals and environmental factors.
i IMPLICATIONS FOR COMPANIES: risk can be decreased by assessing the effects of aggregate exposures and
probable combinations of chemicals, to determine how the amount of a particular chemical in a product that is applied
multiple times a day, or with other products, can be modified accordingly.
2.3.2 LOW-DOSE EFFECTS
Traditional approaches to regulatory toxicology follow the axiom that ‘the danger is in the dose’. Tests to determine the toxicity
of a substance assume that substances will always be more toxic at higher doses, and less toxic at lower doses. Consequently,
allowable dose limits are established for many substances that are toxic at high doses. However, emerging research has found
that some chemicals are more harmful at low doses. For example, some EDCs fool the body at low doses into thinking they
are hormones, thus allowing them to disrupt the function of the hormonal system. At higher doses, these same chemicals are
recognised by the body as foreign, and don’t have the same impact.
i IMPLICATIONS FOR COMPANIES: substances that are currently allowed at low doses may be banned or require
disclosure on labels in the future. It is consequently advised that substances found or suspected to have ‘low dose’
effects are excluded from consumer products.CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 19
2.3.3 REGRETTABLE SUBSTITUTION
Chemicals that are discovered to be harmful to humans or the environment are often replaced by chemicals that have been
inadequately researched, and are later discovered to be harmful in similar or different ways. This problem has been termed
‘regrettable substitution’ and is pervasive in the consumer product industries. One reason regrettable substitution is such
a problem is because each chemical in a product serves a particular purpose. Companies are therefore likely to seek out a
replacement chemical that is structurally and functionally similar to the problematic chemical so they do not need to radically
alter their product formulation.
Two approaches to avoid regrettable substitution are provided below. In many cases, these options should be used in
conjunction with one another.
Option 1: Product Redesign
Where a harmful chemical must be replaced, a ‘best practice’ approach does not involve substituting it with another chemical
that is under-researched, but thinking about how the product could be redesigned to avoid the use of harmful chemicals.
i IMPLICATIONS FOR COMPANIES: ‘regrettable substitution’ can be avoided by rethinking how a product’s functions
could be delivered through a different product design, or even a new product/service system.
Option 2: The Six Classes Approach
Certain classes of chemicals have been consistently found to have harmful human and environmental impacts. Although,
not all chemicals in each of these classes have been tested to date, they are closely related and behave in similar ways to
chemicals known to be harmful. Scientists are increasingly advocating that the ‘precautionary principle’ be applied in relation
to these classes of chemicals, and that they should be excluded from consumer products completely. See Figure 2.
i IMPLICATIONS FOR COMPANIES: the exclusion of these six chemical classes from consumer products is a crucial
strategy for avoiding ‘regrettable substitution’. This will also prevent the need for constant reformulation of products,
and will help safeguard against a loss of community trust in the company.CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 20
3. Evaluation Framework
The evaluation framework involved four broad areas of performance review, as described in the boxed paragraphs below.
Scores and ratings from each area of the evaluation were then aggregated together to form an overall snapshot of each
company, with an overall performance score relating to products and processes (Table 4 and Table 5) as well as a rating for
chemicals of concern (Table 6), rating for ingredient disclosure (Table 7) and a high-level rating for regulatory, reputational
and financial risk (Table 8). Drawing from these four broad areas of evaluation, ISF developed individual recommendations for
de‑risking for each company.
1a
Each company’s efforts to eliminate or reduce chemicals of concern in its products were evaluated across
company product ranges and business processes.
Given the inadequacy of current regulatory frameworks for assessing and restricting hazardous chemicals in consumer products,
ISF have developed a more comprehensive approach to assessing potential human and environmental chemical hazards based
on additional criteria for each of the 21 companies (Table 4). The evaluation criteria outlined in Table 4 below were developed
based on latest scientific findings in addition to existing research into aspects of proactive chemical management strategies
that have been effectively employed by consumer product manufacturers.10 This gave an indication of what was possible, the
challenges faced by companies, and key elements of best practice models.
Table 4: Product responsibility performance evaluation criteria
Criteria Components
Business operations
Corporate strategy Explicit commitment in company strategic plans and policies to exclude chemicals from products
that are hazardous to humans and the environment
Employs a company-specific or industry Restricted Substances List to determine chemical
exclusions for products
Regularly evaluates and reports on progress towards chemical management targets, including
chemical phase outs
Demonstrates commitment to responsible chemical management across all business areas,
subsidiary companies and global regions of operation
Product Procedures are in place to evaluate the potential human and environmental impacts of chemicals
development considered for use in all new products
processes
Product design processes involve an evaluation of potential impacts of chemicals on humans and the
environment across the entire lifecycle of products, including implications for recycling and disposal
Supply chain Hazardous chemicals are restricted in the production process, or managed and disposed of
management responsibly at all stages of the supply chain
Company requires suppliers to comply with proactive chemical management processes, and
evaluates their compliance
10 Scruggs, C.E., Buren, H.J.V. (2016), “Why Leading Consumer Product Companies Develop Proactive Chemical Management Strategies”,
Business & Society, Vol.55 (5), pp. 635-675.CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 21
Criteria Components
Leadership Works with government, industry and scientists to develop and progress voluntary standards and
tools to reform the industry and supply chain
Internally runs or supports Green Chemistry initiatives
Consultation Regular benchmarking for chemical safety of products is performed against competitors
Has an established process for consulting in-house experts or third parties for assistance with
hazardous chemical management
Has an effective mechanism to engage with customer feedback around chemical concerns
and restrictions
Product attributes
Safe materials All relevant user scenarios and risks are considered when assessing the potential for a chemical to
cause harm in a product
Products do not contain chemicals that are known or suspected to be harmful to consumers
Processes are in place to re-evaluate product formulas when chemical safety concerns are raised
Communication Company discloses all product ingredients on labels or its website
Certification has been obtained from a third party requiring all product ingredients to be
publicly available
Procurement policy requires suppliers to disclose information about the production and use of
potentially hazardous chemicals
Provides training and other resources to suppliers about hazardous chemical management
Promotion of Rethinks product design and production rather than substituting individual chemicals when
broader chemical hazardous chemicals are identified in products
avoidance Develops products that remediate chemicals or promote low chemical exposure in the
broader environment.
1b
Product responsibility efforts were scored based on evidence provided in public documents, surveys,
written responses and interviews.
Companies’ efforts in product safety and responsibility were assigned scores for each of the evaluation criteria in Table 4. The
scoring system shown in Table 5, was modelled on the Sustainable Packaging Report11 completed by ISF, which provides a
simple way for readers to understand why companies scored high or low in particular actions. Criteria scores (e.g. ‘Corporate
Strategy’) were calculated by a structured process of selecting the highest score from the three information channels (public
documents, survey/written response and/or interview) for each criteria component (shown in Table 4). The overall company
scores were then calculated by averaging the scores across each criterion and assigning an overall level of performance
(Table 5).
11 Kelly, S., Lewis, H., Atherton, A., Downes, J., & Wyndham, J., Giurco, D. (2016): Packaging Sustainability in Consumer Companies in Emerging Markets: Final Report.
Institute for Sustainable Futures, UTS.CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 22
3. Evaluation Framework continued
Table 5: Product responsibility evaluation scoring table
Expected performance at each level for selected companies
Levels of
Score performance Characteristics
0 No response No publicly available information
Researchers unable to interview a company representative and/or no or insufficient
information provided by the company
1 No action The company is not aware of the issues or they are not seen as important
2 Getting started Some awareness and action
Informal commitments
Ad-hoc activities
3 Established Product responsibility commitments embedded in corporate strategy and processes
Responsibility allocated across the company
Targets and metrics adopted
Suppliers being engaged
4 Leading Ambitious targets and metrics adopted
Public accountability
Company goes beyond compliance
Consumer engagement strategy being implemented
Good progress achieved for product responsibility and/or outstanding innovation
5 Chemicals An ambitious product responsibility strategy guides all business activities including
management/ procurement
product
responsibility Product responsibility is considered at every stage of product development - design,
best practice procurement, manufacture, distribution, etc.
Product responsibility is a source of business innovation and competitive advantage
Targets have been achieved
Continuous improvement strategy in place, not only for the company, but to use corporate
leadership position to transform the sector’s practice in collaboration with governments, and
civil societyCHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 23
2 Each company’s use of chemicals of concern was evaluated.
Using online tools such as the EWG Skin Deep® cosmetics database and ChemSec’s SINList, as well as the broader scientific
literature, ISF evaluated each company’s use of chemicals of concern. Ratings derived from these sources were finalised by
cross-checking ingredients using the thresholds outlined in Table 6.
Table 6: Chemicals of Concern Ratings and Descriptions
Chemicals of
Concern Rating Description
HIGH Majority of chemicals listed under company name or company products on EWG Skin Deep
Database/ChemSec SIN List or other third-party databases are listed as of High Concern.
MEDIUM Majority of chemicals listed under company name or company products on EWG Skin Deep
Database/ChemSec SIN List or other third-party databases are listed as of Moderate/Medium
Concern.
LOW Majority of chemicals listed under company name or company products on EWG Skin Deep
Database/ChemSec SIN List or other third-party databases are listed as of Low Concern.CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 24
3. Evaluation Framework continued
3 Each company’s ingredient disclosure was evaluated.
Through interviews with NGOs and academics active in the product responsibility/safety and consumer products sector
regarding chemicals, ISF determined that the level of disclosure a company provides with regard to product ingredients was a
significant indicator of product responsibility efforts. In order to evaluate each company based on a best practice model, ISF
developed a rating based on the Environmental Working Group’s grading system for product/ingredient ingredient disclosure in
its Guide to Healthy Cleaning (Table 7).
Table 7: Levels of Ingredient Disclosure Ratings and Descriptions
Ingredient
Disclosure Rating Description
POOR Product ingredients are listed with very little detail or no details on products or online and/or are hard
to find. Chemicals are referred to generically and ingredient lists are not complete.
INSUFFICIENT Product ingredients are listed with some detail on products or online. Some chemicals are referred
to generically or not listed if used in small amounts.
GOOD Product ingredients are listed in detail on products or online. All chemical names are referred to
individually, even if used in very small compositions.
4 Each company’s regulatory, reputational and financial risk was determined.
Using the product responsibility performance evaluation, chemicals of concern rating and ingredient disclosure ratings
described above, the overall regulatory, reputational and financial risks for each of the selected companies were
determined using the risk reference matrix in Table 8. The reasoning and process for assigning risk is detailed in the boxed
paragraph below.
i The determinant for regulatory and reputational risks was the number of chemicals and severity of concern about
these chemicals within a company’s products. These particular chemicals have been identified in scientific studies
indicating a potential for human or environmental harm. This approach is intended to mitigate against the risk of
companies continuing to use chemicals that scientific research has indicated are highly likely to be hazardous. The
determinant for financial risk is the percentage of product sales that would be affected within the company by
regulatory or reputational issues, with financial performance and segment sales proportions determined from annual
and financial reports available online.CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 25
Table 8: Regulatory, Reputational and Financial risk references
Risk level
Risk type Determinant Low Medium High
Regulatory No. of ingredients Little disruption Some disruption Major disruption to sales
of concern/ level of on sales on sales
concern No-low legal threats Some legal threats/ Shutdowns/ major
minor fines/penalties penalties/fines
Reputational No. of ingredients No-minor loss of Some loss of Major effect on
of concern/ level of customer trust customer trust customer trust, may
concern be unrecoverable
No-little media Some media coverage Major media coverage
coverage (mostly locally) (locally/internationally)
Financial Size of product 15% of sales
categories of concern
More extensive evaluations of company risks could not be provided at this time due to the poor availability of data across
the selected companies.
Product responsibility performance, ingredient safety, ingredient disclosure levels and risk profiles for
5 each company were used to determine up to 3 main de-risking areas, probing questions and suggested
improvements for the short-term (less than 3 years) and long-term (more than 3 years).
The outputs from the four evaluation areas were used to develop recommendations for de‑risking for each company,
highlighting areas of concern and potential actions to be taken in the short and longer term to reduce regulatory, reputational
and financial risk relating to hazardous chemical management.CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 26
4. Results Summary
4.1 Overall score results, by company
Figure 3: Overall score results, by company
C9 (Ingredients)
C16 (Adhesives and Sealants)
C2 (Paints, Adhesives and Sealants)
C10 (Paints, Adhesives and Sealants)
C4 (Personal Care, Home Care)
C3 (Personal Care)
C5 (Personal Care, Home Care,
Pesticides and Insecticides)
C18 (Ingredients)
C1 (Personal Care)
C11 (Paints)
C15 (Paints)
C12 (Personal Care)
C20 (Personal Care, Ingredients)
C8 (Personal Care, Home Care)
C19 (Paints)
C14 (Personal Care)
C6 (Personal Care, Home Care,
Pesticides and Insecticides)
C17 (Personal Care, Home Care)
C7 (Personal Care, Home Care,
Adhesives and Sealants, Ingredients)
C13 (Personal Care, Home Care)
C21 (Personal Care, Home Care)
1 2 3 4 5
No Action Getting Started Established Leading Best Practice
Figure 3 ranks the companies in order from least to highest average score calculated across the criteria categories, with the
circles representing the average and ‘lozenges’ representing the range of scores achieved across all criteria. All company
performance evaluations were at or below ‘Established’ level. Nine companies were evaluated as ‘Getting Started’ level with
another eight companies evaluated as ‘No Action’. This indicates that there is much progress to be made in moving towards
safe, sustainable and responsible management of chemicals in consumer products across these companies.CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 27
4.2 Overall score results, by assessment criteria
Figure 4: Overall score results, by assessment criteria
Promotion of Chemical Avoidance
Safe Materials
Communication
Consultation
Leadership
Supply Chain Management
Product Development Processes
Corporate Strategy
1 2 3 4 5
No Action Getting Started Established Leading Best Practice
Figure 4 ranks the companies in order from least to highest average score calculated across the criteria categories, with the
circles representing the average and ‘lozenges’ representing the range of scores achieved across all companies. While many
companies referenced consumer safety, environment and sustainability in their corporate strategies and marketing material, it
was difficult to locate documents that provided evidence of their processes in these areas. Despite statements of commitment
to safety, ‘Safe Materials’ ranked second last, suggesting that many companies continue to manufacture products with
ingredients of concern. The evaluations also suggested little evidence of concerted effort to improve sector/industry standards,
with ‘Promotion of Chemical Avoidance’ receiving the lowest average score out of the eight criteria categories.CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 28
4. Results Summary continued
4.3 Ingredient disclosure and ‘chemicals of concern’ grades
by company
Table 9: Ingredient disclosure and chemicals of concern
Ingredient Chemicals
Company Overall Score disclosure of concern
C6 (Personal Care, Home Care, Pesticides 2.8 GOOD MEDIUM
and Insecticides)
C12 (Personal Care) 2.7 GOOD HIGH
C13 (Personal Care, Home Care) 3.0 GOOD MEDIUM
C14 (Personal Care) 2.8 GOOD MEDIUM
C19 (Paints) 2.8 GOOD HIGH
C20 (Personal Care, Ingredients) 2.6 GOOD LOW*
C21 (Personal Care, Home Care) 3.5 GOOD MEDIUM
C1 (Personal Care) 2.1 INSUFFICIENT LOW
C2 (Paints, Adhesives and Sealants) 1.5 INSUFFICIENT HIGH
C3 (Personal Care) 1.6 INSUFFICIENT HIGH
C4 (Personal Care, Home Care) 1.6 INSUFFICIENT HIGH
C5 (Personal Care, Home Care, Pesticides 1.7 INSUFFICIENT HIGH
and Insecticides)
C7 (Personal Care, Home Care, Adhesives and 3.0 INSUFFICIENT HIGH
Sealants, Ingredients)
C8 (Personal Care, Home Care) 2.7 INSUFFICIENT HIGH
C9 (Ingredients) 1.1 INSUFFICIENT HIGH
C10 (Paints, Adhesives and Sealants) 1.5 INSUFFICIENT HIGH
C11 (Paints) 2.2 INSUFFICIENT HIGH
C17 (Personal Care, Home Care) 3.0 INSUFFICIENT MEDIUM
C15 (Paints) 2.2 POOR HIGH
C16 (Adhesives and Sealants) 1.2 POOR HIGH
C18 (Ingredients) 1.7 POOR HIGH
* C20 (Personal Care, Ingredients)’s ‘Low’ grade for chemicals of concern should be treated with caution: it was difficult to evaluate due to the
company’s range of sectors and lack of distinction between these in public documents.
The companies are ranked above according to ingredient disclosure level, as we have found this is the most immediate
area for improvement. Ingredient disclosure on product ingredients and provision of specific chemical names was largely
insufficient across the board, with only seven companies being awarded a ‘Good’ rating for ingredient disclosure. Indian
and Japanese companies fared worst in this area, which may be an indication of the lack of detailed labelling laws in these
countries. Several companies currently satisfy labelling laws and regulatory policies through use of generic ingredient terms
such as ‘fragrance’, ‘parfum’, ‘colourants’ and ‘preservatives’ without the need for specification of chemical names. This is not
considered best practice.You can also read
